I see many posts here saying that if we somehow get a recount that shows that Kerry won, * will no longer have a "mandate" and will thus not govern like a psychopath. Can one of the proponents of this theory tell me why (s)he believes it? He actually DID lose the 2000 election - does not contest that fact - and spent his first term governing like a psychopath. WHy will this time be different?

because he won't be campaigning for the entire term like he did last time.

if he had one by a single PV, he would still claim a mandate. that's how he operates. black/white. WINNER/loser.

i had a dream last night where an Ohio recount showed a very narrow win for Kerry... I don't think it's a likely scnenerio, but, until the votes are ALL counted...

the KEY issue in the vote challenges, from a partisan perspective, is that all reports of potential fraud are cases which benefitted republican candidates (as far as I've heard). tainting the outcome may be the best that democratcs get...

but, reforming and standardizing the voting process, including the outlawing of any technology that is not open-source and provided a voter-verified and recountable ballot, benefits us all.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.